Indigenous slaves vs African slaves

In your opinion do you believe that there would have still been a large importation of African slaves if the native slaves didn't die off? If the Spanish, Portuguese, French and English were able to continue to use the indigenous population as a work force do you think the Atlantic slave trade would have been much smaller if it had happened at all? I'm aware that Irish slaves were at one point cheaper than African slaves and that the slave traders essentially pushed for the use of Africans over Irish as to not lose business. Anyway do you feel the histories of the Americas would have been shaped drastically different if the slave labor remained predominantly indigenous?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimis_Deus
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Yes, there would still be importaiton of Africans. They attempted to enslave the natives en masse, but even the ones that didn't die had a tendency to flee into the jungle.

Dindus, on the other hand, just kind of accept it as given, probably because their "cultures" had slavery as a normal thing for the past couple thousand years.

Didn't some of the larger tribes have slavery as well as the Aztecs? How much did the slavery of the Aztecs differ then the western concept of slavery?

Didn't the natives enslave the blacks? The whole "Five Civilized Tribes" thing brought about a great deal of interest in slaves.
What if we enslaved them, then they enslaves the blacks? Would we have a pyramid of slavery?

>I'm aware that Irish slaves were at one point cheaper than African slaves and that the slave traders essentially pushed for the use of Africans over Irish as to not lose business.


problem with the Irish was that they were considered incapable of learning to do any tasks efficiently.

The Irish would not have been able to take the heat & humidity. They would have dropped like flies

Would Asians have made efficient slaves for the harsh manual labor of the sugar cane fields?

I think the biggest thing people don't realize is the actual skills African enslaved people had. Extensive herder, cotton farmers, makers and professionals of indigo dyes, metallurgy, rice farmers and terrace builders etc.... These were goods that brought wealth that most indigenous groups did not have.

There is a reason why Gullah have overwhelming Sierra Leonean roots for example.

what i was literally told in both my middle school and high school US history classes that natives were to hard to enslave because they could just run off to other tribes and sometimes they could even pass as white so they started bringing charcoal black nigs over because it was easier to keep them in line.

also
>if they didnt die off

euros might not have been a positon to just go taking slaves like its nothing if natives kept their numbers in the first place

If we'd really had our shit together we'd have manifest destiny that fuck proper and jumped the Pacific and slave traded the fuck out of chinks nips info nigs and abos and be building pyramids to the heavens but Europe's apologist stance for its own fraternised shit fest disabled all of the above.

Info nigs*** damn book tech they make it for 5ft nothings

The whole factor of the new world is how the slaves had no idea of how the land was so survival was pretty low if they escaped (that's why Britain just brought in Indian indentured labour for it's African railways, The fucked/extremely inhumane working conditions during construction would be easy to escape for a local). However this still didn't prevent escapes from happening and Black villages/societies and groups formed of escaped slaves.

South Asians yes (they were the labour pool used when slavery was abolished), South East yes, East yes. the key thing is availability of those groups to you.

Wasn't plantation scale slavery dying off until the cotton gin was invented and then it took off again?

Bump for interest

the incas had a system called mita, it was similar to "voluntary work" in USSR during Stalin. The spaniards took over the system and overburned it.

I mean that didn't stop the formation of Maroon societies from Florida to Brazil

>if the native slaves didn't die off?

They didn't "die off", at least in the case of Spain's conquest. Following the discovery of America and contact with the indians there was a philosophical debate on what to do and what should be the stand with the natives. Starting with the Laws of Burgos and later the New Laws, the Laws of Indias called for an integration and christianization of the natives and explicitly forbade their enslavement.

Hacienda clearly show those edicts and laws were ignored

Indians have souls, therefore they cannot be slaves.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimis_Deus

>the actual skills African enslaved people had.

Kangz, please.

With the exception of metal working (picked up from the Near East and Europe) Sub-Saharan Black Africans were more primitive then American Indians.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Animal husbandry, rice cultivation, indigo processing etc... Were critical in colonial economies. Because of early transmission of sugarcane in West Africa the processing and refinement of the process was beyond that of Latin Americans.

Clearly you are biased but really I don't really care if you agree or not because their legacy is noted and recognized by colonial era historians

>How much did the slavery of the Aztecs differ then the western concept of slavery?
Indebted people and prisoners of war who were not sacrificed (apparently Aztecs sacrificed mostly army commanders and distinguished warriors) became slaves. Slavery and debt were not hereditary and slaves could buy their freedom, marry and own goods. Slaveowners had to provide housing, nourishment and healthcare to their slaves and a slave could sue its owner for mistreatment.
Unfortunately, only the laws of Tenochtitlan and Tlatelolco were recorded extensively so there's not much information available about the other two members of the Aztec Empire, Texcoco and Tlacopan, nevermind other Mesoamerican city-states. For this reason it's uncertain if the slaves who bought their freedom, managed to return to their homelands, or were considered traitors and executed like in Tlaxcala. It's possible that many settled down in Tenochtitlan, since many calpillu (neighborhoods-guilds-disctricts) accepted foreigners.
Sometimes, humble families would sell their children in slavery to a noble house in exchange of economical support. The children would serve until they were old enough to marry and establish a family, then a younger relative would take their place. Cases like this were recorded in Tenochtitlan and Texcoco. Tlacopan's legislation must have been quite interesting considering its slave market.

Yes.
And it happen because of malaria and other diseases.
The main area that import african slaves were this were mosquito carried deadly diseases.
For example death ratio for irish indenture workers were around of 50% but for african from west coast around 5% in first year.
Heck on slave ships sometimes there were more dead euro crewmens that african slaves. One reason why most slavers ships were manned by mostly black crews later.
One reason why southern Argentina and northern USA is mostly white.
That is not true.
Plenty of black slaves come from wars and were enemy royalty, nobility or warriors. Better to sell them than keep them where they can cause trouble.
They rebel often and they run into jungle mixed with locals and form their own petty kingdoms.
They have some kangdomz from Brasilia to Florida.
Some even helped Drake try to steal Spanish
gold.
There were plenty of Indian/Chinks/Nipponise and other in Spanish american colonies. Especially in Mexico.

Pic related.

who gives a fuck about sugar? mesoamericans built pyramids and cities, that's what matters.

Both Aztecs and Indians had slaves and vassals from other tribes which the Spaniards used to fight and eventually overthrow both Civilizations

Incas*

of course
most of the workers at Potosí were Amerindians because of the relatively large Amerindian population due to the Inca Empire.

>their legacy

Sugarcane wasn’t hugely profitable because Blacks were somehow experts at growing it, (same goes for slopping pigs, picking cotton, etc.) the entire system of plantation farming was controlled by Whites from beginning to end.

The Blacks brought nothing to the process, beyond serving as grunt manual labor; literally disposable human robots.

If European colonists could have used native American Indians to do the work, they would have, as the Spanish did outside of the Caribbean and Brazil.

Bump for interest

It was owned by white, the slave drivers were largely African as were the skilled workers of the colonies.

You sound like a Mexican mestizo or some SoCal/Texas fag